gaithersblog.net

The City has posted notice of a public hearing for Historic Area Work Permit 56E, for 17 Walker Ave:

The application requests a certificate of approval from the City’s Historic District Commission for a replacement garage at 17 Walker Avenue . Section 24-228 of the City Code (Zoning Ordinance) requires a historic area work permit for altering exterior features of a historic resource. The subject property, located on Lot 17, Walkers Addition to Gaithersburg , is a contributing resource to the Brookes, Russell, Walker Historic District. Contact the Planning and Code Administration City Planner (listed below) at 301-258-6330 if you should have any questions and/or to learn more about this process and your ability to offer testimony and input.

The video for last night’s joint work session of the Mayor & Council and Planning Commission is now online. This was a short meeting, only about 45 minutes. A motion to hold a closed executive session passed, the traffic impact standards document was quickly introduced, and the bulk of the meeting concerned the Vistas. Generally, the Mayor, Council and Planning Commission were much happier with the proposal than they had been with previous iterations. The primary concern was with the structure of the homeowner’s association, whether they would merge with the Quince Orchard Park HOA or be a standalone HOA just for their relatively small development. There appeared to be reluctance to approve the plan unless the new homes could become part of the QOP HOA. Regarding affordable housing, while there were no provisions for it in the current plan, it was stated that if the affordable housing ordinance went into effect before the Vistas SDP could be approved, then the new ordinance would apply to the new development. Given the status of the project review, it seemed unlikely that the the SDP would be approved in time.

The closed executive session was, of course, closed and I can find no reports on what happened.

Update: The Gazette has an article on this : Vistas Housing Project Slowed by Confusion

Geography, Not Our Strongest Subject:

The Post fixed the graphic online after it was mentioned in Gene Weingarten’s chat. You’ll just have to trust me that I didn’t change the map when I used Photoshop to crop the screenshot. You can also take a look at page A2 of a print copy of the Tuesday, September 26 Post.

An article in the Washington Post today tells about Diebold’s continued attempts to deliver electronic voting equipment that appears to work:

Linda H. Lamone, state administrator of the Maryland State Board of Elections, invited Diebold to show that the system is “100 percent perfect.”

To do that yesterday, Diebold technicians showed what happened to an unmodified e-poll book after 40 to 50 voters had registered: An error message appeared on the screen, displaying the words “can not continue;” the screen went black; and the unit rebooted, as if a polling judge had just turned it on.

Then, Diebold technician Euel Kirk Cowal began registering voters on a unit with the modified software. Cowal reached 138 voters without a freeze. The Diebold executives, including one from the company’s Texas headquarters and another from a subsidiary in California, looked relieved.

Lamone, who has long championed the company and its voting machines, said she was not disappointed in Diebold. “I love the technology. I’m disappointed we had the problems, but I’m heartened to see Diebold stepping up to the plate to come up with solutions,” she said.

“If it doesn’t work,” she added, referring to the e-poll books, “we’re going to pack them up and ship them back.”

And what, exactly, would it take to convince Ms. Lamone that the books don’t work? I personally can’t see any way that these machines can be trusted until (a) the hardware designs, the software, and the production and delivery channels are completely open and available for independent audit, and (b) a voter-verifiable paper record is produced and archived, enabling a human-monitored recount. A controlled demonstration showing that a system doesn’t crash after 138 voters have signed in is in no way sufficient proof that the system works; anyone who has ever bought a new system after seeing a trade show demonstration can attest to this.

Update: I see that MoCo was thinking along the same lines…

Update: The Baltimore Sun also has a story on this.

When I wrote about the draft affordable housing ordinance a few days ago, I said:

[…] perhaps developers could opt out of the affordable-units requirement by purchasing units in existing developments and reselling them as MPDUs.

Clearly the same concept could be applied to rental housing, and in last Saturday’s Washington Post there was an article about a company that is rehabilitating older buildings for affordable housing:

KSI purchased the building — originally built in 1972 — in 1998, rehabbed it in 2000 and turned it into a rent-subsidized property in 2001. With the Fields of Gaithersburg and more than two dozen other of its buildings, the company participates in a tax credit program designed to provide reasonably priced apartments to households whose incomes fall within certain ranges.

Having lived there through an ownership and management change as well as a renovation that inconvenienced her, Carmona remains pleased with her experience. That is at least in part because when KSI took over and upgraded the complex’s 168 units, Carmona got a dishwasher, wall-to-wall carpeting to cover what she describes as shabby wood floors, new windows and window treatments and a complete renovation of the kitchen and bathroom.

In their one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, residents also have ample closet space and a window in each kitchen. Each building has its own laundry room.

Residents are allowed pets, have plenty of parking and have access to a children’s playground and an on-site outdoor pool.

The nice, clean pool was the only reason Susan Molina felt bad about living at the Fields, but only because her co-worker, who lives in nearby condo, did not have access to such a haven from Washington’s hot summer.

I believe that this would be the complex mentioned in the article.

Now, given that this is a story in the Washington Post, there’s a chance that it is little more than a goodness-and-light fantasy. But it sure sounds better than a lot of the affordable housing in Gaithersburg, which is affordable only as a result of disinvestment. I think that to the extent that a developer is willing to rehabilitate some existing structures in this manner and re-purpose them for affordable housing, that this should be counted toward the affordable housing requirement in a new development or redevelopment project — especially if the new project is in an area that already has a lot of disinvestment-induced “affordable” housing.